This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Rodrigues rail is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not
substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I think the lead could be improved- an indication of when the species became extinct and its former range would be useful. I don't think jumping into taxonomical controversies in the second line is a good idea- that's not of interest to a lot of readers.
Done, and can't believe I didn't mention the island in the lead, must be because of all the other articles I've worked on with very similar intros...
"The second description is by Julien Tafforet, from 1726." Perhaps explain who he is?
Done.
Sometimes you use "grey", othertimes you use "gray"- choose one of American or British English (or Canadian/Australian/whatever else)
I'll change it to grey.
"differential food availability" Is "differential" definitely used correctly here?
I removed the sentence, was a weird remnant of the old version.
It'd be great if we could have a picture of the red rail- perhaps the two Frohawk pictures could be placed side-by-side?
Template:Multiple image can be good for this, if you fancy it.
I added the Red Rail image, but since the other one in the taxobox, I've just placed it in a section where it is mentioned.
Not sure what can be done about this, but I thought it worth mentioning- the "behaviour" section just reads, for the most part, as a paraphrasing of the two contemporary descriptions.
Yes, that's a remnant of the old version of the article, perhaps I could break up the quotes so one comes under description and the other goes under behaviour? Then the paraphrasing could be cut down.
Your formatting on the Olson source is a little off. Same for the Milne-Edwards source.
Done, were both taken from elsewhere.
I don't like the hanging external link in the Voyages et Avantures de François Leguat & de ses Compagnons footnote
Done, it was also without a citation template, which was overlooked in the Solitaire FAC.
I worry slightly about the moderately heavy reliance on the Gunther source, which is over 130 years old. I don't object to it as such, but it's something to be aware of.
Yes, I'd love if there were more recent sources, but the bird is extremely obscure, and often overshadowed by the Red Rail, and just mentioned in passing. Perhaps because it was never depicted alive. The Günther source is the most comprehensive osteological account.
To be honest, I think I'd rather see the reconstruction as the lead image, unless we have a reason to consider it unreliable. The bones are probably a little dull to the general reader- equally, I'd not put a spore picture in the lead of a mushroom article, even if the spores happened to be the most distinctive element.
I was thinking the same at one point, but thought the bones were more reliable. Storrs Olson called it "fanciful", and I think the eye patch might be exaggerated, compared to the descriptions. But yes, it is nice to look at, so I think I'll switch.
Hope these thoughts are helpful. I'll give the article another read through once you've responded to them (or not, as the case may be).
J Milburn (
talk)
19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Heheh, he used quite some colourful language in that paper, he also called one of the old Red Rail drawings "ludicrous". I'll add it to the caption when I get the PDF again (to check the correct context).
FunkMonk (
talk)
08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, the repetition is still grating on me a tad, and I think the bunched-up illustrations would annoy a lot of people. Perhaps lose the frontispiece, bring together the bones into
Template:Multiple image and move the Red Rail pic to the right? Other possibilities- put one of the bone pics as a second taxobox image and consider losing the Red Rail (my advice may be a long way from perfect...)
J Milburn (
talk)
16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Sounds nice to me, two of the pictures aren't essential at all, just filler (frontpiece, Red Rail), and I think I'll spread the bone pictures out a bit.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)reply
I can see that the reconstruction was actually based on an outline drawn after an old depiction of a Red Rail, and even then the mandible may not be curvy enough. Now all the paraphrased material has been placed in the behaviour section, so at least it isn't spread out.
FunkMonk (
talk)
12:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply